'We have chosen this war'

"There are some who believe that victory will come swiftly and with few casualties. But as George Bush rightly warned, the war may also be 'longer and more difficult than some have predicted'. Iraqi resistance may be bitter; Saddam Hussein and the war criminals around him may use chemical or biological weapons or try to stage terrorist attacks.

"Yet even if the operation does not go smoothly or fast, it must go forward. The days and weeks ahead may be difficult, and the costs high, both for Americans and for Iraqis. But the reward, if America and its allies can sustain their commitment, will also be great: the end of a despot who has haunted a people, and the world, for far too long."

Andrew J Bacevich Los Angeles Times, March 20

"This war has not been thrust upon us. We have chosen it. By initiating hostilities without explicit United Nations sanction and despite fierce opposition abroad, it has shown that, when it comes to using force, the world's sole superpower insists upon absolute freedom of action.

"The fact is that force has emerged as the preferred instrument of American statecraft. Military might is no longer a necessary evil; entrusted to American hands, it has become invaluable. The Bush administration, like the Clinton administration, calls on its forces not only to win wars but also to succour the afflicted, keep the peace and repair broken nations. Policy-makers today charge the armed services with nudging others into conformity with American values. There is a word for this. It's called militarism."

New York Times Editorial, March 20

"Now that the first strikes have begun, even those who vehemently opposed this war will find themselves in the strange position of hoping for just what the president they have opposed is himself hoping for: a quick, conclusive resolution fought as bloodlessly as possible.

"If things go as well as we hope, even those who sharply disagree with the logic behind this war are likely to end up feeling reassured, almost against their will, by the successful projection of American power. Whether they felt the idea of war was a bad one from the beginning, or - like us - they felt it should be undertaken only with broad international support, the yearning to go back to a time when we felt in control of our own destiny still runs strong.

"Even as we sit here at home, worrying about the outcome of the fighting, we must start to debate what comes next. That public discussion has to start soon, even tomorrow. But for now, all our other thoughts have come to rest. We simply hope for the welfare of those men and women - sons and daughters - who will be flinging themselves into the Iraqi desert."

Chicago Sun-Times Editorial, March 20

"This war is a declaration that America will no longer wait to be attacked. The prospect of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists makes the stakes too high. This is hard for some people to take. They prefer to cling to an idealised vision of American innocence - first let the Japanese bomb us at Pearl Harbor, and only then act.

"Now the US has acted. We would be bolder in predicting just how quickly that blow will lead to success, were not the history of warfare replete with long, bloody conflicts. This war will end when the Iraqis are defeated or decide they have had enough. We predict that most will want to live to see a new Iraq, freed from the tyrant Saddam."

San Francisco Chronicle Editorial, March 20

"Americans are rightly worried that terrorists, whether driven by loyalty to Iraq or other agendas of hate, will strike at the US. It is an anxious time. The coming days will, perhaps more than ever, test this nation's tolerance of dissent and respect for civil liberties. The demonstrations against the war are likely to become more desperate and intense, with a tactical shift towards civil disobedience.

"The Bush administration's aggressive attempts to repeal civil liberties after September 11 raise concerns about how it might react under wartime stresses. It must resist the temptation to further restrict basic freedoms in the name of peace and security."

Christian Science Monitor Editorial, March 20

"The Bush administration lost at the UN, but its quiet diplomacy did win a big victory in the one nation that's been both a source of terrorism and is now pivotal to ending it. By allowing the US to fly aircraft over their long border with Iraq and use a key command facility near Riyadh, the Saudi royal leaders have made the war much easier for the American military.

"The potential risks and rewards [for the Saudi regime] are high. Public resentment could rise, forcing more political repression and motivating more Saudis to join al-Qaida.

"But if the US does set up a friendly government in Baghdad, it will end the Saudi need to have US forces on its territory as defence against a threatening Iraq. That will meet, albeit indirectly, a key demand by Osama bin Laden to remove the infidels from Islam's homeland, and thus perhaps weaken al-Qaida's ability to recruit."

Sign up for the Guardian Today

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.